Easiest way into large format

The only advantages of a roll film back with a large format camera are that film is cheaper per exposure, and it's less weight and bulk to carry a roll film back and a roll of 120 film than the equivalent number of film holders.

All the other disadvantages of LF still apply (focus on ground glass, need a tripod) with the extra inconvenience of swapping a back rather than just slotting a film holder in.
 
@Ben johns @sirch
Do either of you make physical prints?

I agree about importanceof resolution for printing large but if only making files to view on a screen or reduce to 1000 max on the long side to share on here, I don’t see the importance of such high res tbh
 
StephenM said:
advantages of a roll film back with a large format camera are that film is cheaper per exposure,
Click to expand...
Agreed cheaper but relative to the difference in negative size ;)
 
Asha said:
@Ben johns @sirch
Do either of you make physical prints?

I agree about importanceof resolution for printing large but if only making files to view on a screen or reduce to 1000 max on the long side to share on here, I don’t see the importance of such high res tbh
Click to expand...
I do, not a huge amount.
I agree I don’t think resolution is a deal breaker but I’m just saying that if having a scanner is a worry then I think a digital camera can be used and in my opinion better than most. Apart from slide film, I cannot get a good scan from positives for whatever reason!
 
Ben johns said:
I do, not a huge amount.
I agree I don’t think resolution is a deal breaker but I’m just saying that if having a scanner is a worry then I think a digital camera can be used and in my opinion better than most. Apart from slide film, I cannot get a good scan from positives for whatever reason!
Click to expand...
If it works for you then that’s what matters.

I’ve never tried the digi camera method of scanning and doubtful that I ever will seeing as I don’t have a suitable camera so I can’t comment on any comparison with a flatbed.

Perhaos the latter is easier in so far as being ready set up etc but of course there is as mentioned already , a fair financial outlay which could be avoided if a dslr is already to hand.
 
Asha said:
If it works for you then that’s what matters.

I’ve never tried the digi camera method of scanning and doubtful that I ever will seeing as I don’t have a suitable camera so I can’t comment on any comparison with a flatbed.

Perhaos the latter is easier in so far as being ready set up etc but of course there is as mentioned already , a fair financial outlay which could be avoided if a dslr is already to hand.
Click to expand...
The advantage of the flatbed is, as you said, that it’s an all in one. Whilst I didn’t have to I did get a small copy stand and a film holder that does 35mm-4x5. I already had an old macro lens that did the job. If you already have a macro lens then I wouldn’t get a flatbed unless you can get one very cheaply on eBay.

As the negatives get bigger then the advantage in resolution becomes less obvious. Maybe I was doing something wrong but 35mm in the v550 was lacking for me. I never went above 1200dpi (I think it’s 1200) as after some research that’s it’s maximum optical resolution, anything over that just adds bulk to the scans with no added resolution. I would just rather scan a negative once, I don’t see the advantage in scanning it at home, spending the time editing it, then if you want a bigger print having to send it off and then editing it again, on top of paying for the scan
 
I suppose the only limiting factor with DSLR scanning is the close focusing of the lens. If you’ve got a sharp 1:1 lens then like you say, you can just take several images and merge them. The bigger the neg the more images you take...
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
I suppose the only limiting factor with DSLR scanning is the close focusing of the lens. If you’ve got a sharp 1:1 lens then like you say, you can just take several images and merge them. The bigger the neg the more images you take...
Click to expand...
Yea, I do have a more up to date macro lens and I really notice the difference. I was using a 70-210 canon fd macro that had a fixed focus point for macro, was a bit of a pain to get it spot on. Now I have the 30mm 3.5 Sony and using autofocus makes it so much easier. As 4x5 negatives are so large you might be able to fill the frame with a non macro lens, I have yet to scan a 4x5 negative with my set up
 
So many 4x5 out there to choose from, I know there is a lot of love out there for the intrepid, but I also see a lot that find its limits. I have used a few, I started with an MPP, weight, restricted movement and difficulty using wide angles did for that one. I got another, won't mention the make, lightweight and good movements but it suffered with light leaks and lack of rigidity. I now use the Chroma Carbon Adventurer and love it, handles all my lenses from 65mm through to 240mm, an optional extension can be added to it for longer focal lengths and closer focus. Have a chat with Steve Lloyd at Chroma and see if he can help you out with a try out camera.
 
Karl.t1965 said:
So many 4x5 out there to choose from, I know there is a lot of love out there for the intrepid, but I also see a lot that find its limits. I have used a few, I started with an MPP, weight, restricted movement and difficulty using wide angles did for that one. I got another, won't mention the make, lightweight and good movements but it suffered with light leaks and lack of rigidity. I now use the Chroma Carbon Adventurer and love it, handles all my lenses from 65mm through to 240mm, an optional extension can be added to it for longer focal lengths and closer focus. Have a chat with Steve Lloyd at Chroma and see if he can help you out with a try out camera.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the recommendation Karl. Just to add about the bed extension, I haven't officially announced it yet but I've updated the design to integrate the 100mm extension into the standard bed, so the coverage is from 65-385mm now (y)
 
Try and find a complete kit if you can, but if I were building from scratch I’d go for either a Chroma or Intrepid. Pick up a modern 135/150mm from the big four (Nikon, Fuji, Rodenstock, Schneider). Go through a few boxes, make mistakes, maybe add a 90 or 210 later on. Your first LF camera will rarely be your last, I picked up a really nice Tachihara as my first but it wasn’t compatible with Graflok backs so I had to move it on since I wanted to make 6x12 images as well.

I wouldn’t say the Intrepid is limiting at all though, especially when using standard lenses. It’s not as quick (or foolproof) to set up and zero out like my Linhof but as long as you’re methodical and consistent with your shooting process it won’t trip you up. I use it if I want something light and portable. I would seriously look at the Chroma if I were in the market for a new 5x4 though, the detents/magnets/permanently attached front standard would make it much faster to set up and zero out.
 
A new 5x7 would be very interesting to me, as it's probably my favourite format. I look forward to an announcement.
 
StephenM said:
A new 5x7 would be very interesting to me, as it's probably my favourite format. I look forward to an announcement.
Click to expand...
What’s the big difference between 5x7 and 4x5? I know it’s slightly bigger and I’m assuming the aspect ratio is a little different
 
It's midway (more or less) in size at 35 sq inches between 5x4 (20 sq inches) and 10x8 (80 sq inches). The film is about half the price of 10x8, and the proportion more pleasing to most people. I like the shape and the extra flexibility of the larger size.

Because lenses need to have longer focal lengths than 5x4, 5x7 cameras have longer bellows. A 5x4 back on a 5x7 camera therefore allows longer lenses to be used even if using a smaller format. My 5x7 Canham MQC has 620mm of bellows extension which means greater potential in 5x4.

The cameras themselves are not much larger or heavier than their 5x4 equivalents. The MQC is only a pound heavier than the 5x4 DLC. It's a lot of gain without many drawbacks. Other than 5x7 holders being rarer than 5x4 or 10x8 of course. I don't suppose many people use the "alternative" 5x4 film sizes, but in 5x7 I use the slightly larger than 5x7 13x18 metric size. The holders are different though. I can also use half plate in the same cameras, so even more flexibility.

I just prefer the shape. There are lots of 7x5 photo frames that let you see the attraction. I'm not sure how many 5x4 frames there are...
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
A new 5x7 would be very interesting to me, as it's probably my favourite format. I look forward to an announcement.
Click to expand...

I’m building the first production unit at the moment. Both the 4x5 and 5x7 rear bodies are interchangeable on the standard 4x5 Chroma (hence the integrated double length focus bed). I’ve also got a 617 rear body/rollfilm holder on the design table too.

IMG_8572.JPG

This is a little further off release though, as I’m still working out the best combination of rollers to keep it smooth. There will also be a matching Graflok plate to convert the 617 holder to 612, to retain the same focal plane as standard 4x5 cameras.
 
stevelmx5 said:
I’m building the first production unit at the moment. Both the 4x5 and 5x7 rear bodies are interchangeable on the standard 4x5 Chroma (hence the integrated double length focus bed). I’ve also got a 617 rear body/rollfilm holder on the design table too.

View attachment 311257

This is a little further off release though, as I’m still working out the best combination of rollers to keep it smooth. There will also be a matching Graflok plate to convert the 617 holder to 612, to retain the same focal plane as standard 4x5 cameras.
Click to expand...
I like the idea of the 617!
 
Steve already has supplied the means (to Asha and myself) to make more or less 6x17 exposures using a standard 5x7 film holder. OK, not the "convenience" of a roll film back, but slightly (!) cheaper.
 
It’s on my (very long!) list [emoji23] I’m also developing an XPan film back for the 679, an Instax Mini back for the 679 and updating my wet plate holder designs. I’ll do my best [emoji6]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top